.255 and .0 addresses

Jon Lawrence wrote:

> On Sunday 12 September 2004 18:05, Volodymyr Yakovenko wrote:
> 
>>Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I am trying to push one BIG telecom equipment vendor TAC to consider wrong
>> situation with assignment of IP addresses like xxx.xxx.xxx.0 and
>> xxx.xxx.xxx.255 from dynamic IP pools bigger than or equal to /24.
>>
>> Quick googling has not shown any STD or BCP documents, which could be used
>> as reference, but has shown number of pages, saying something like "do not
>> use .0 or .255 addresses, it could cause problems".
>>
> 
> 
> Without doubt, the pools must be bigger than /24 in order for .0 or .255 to be 
> used as host addresses. Never tried it personally, but I can see no reason 
> why .0.255 or .1.0 wouldn't be usable in a .0.0/23 - obviously assuming that 
> you pass /23 to the hosts as a netmask.
> 

The main problem is the classfull behavior of windows tcp/ip stack and 
DUN for the ipcp negotiated address. It's sure that you can't use 
network and broadcast address of an old natural network if running MS 
Windows & DUN.

Assingnament of the correct netmask can't be used as workaround because 
in traditional ppp the mask is not negotiated ( netmask assignament in 
ipcp is a very new feature ).

Félix